IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 39293 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI JOSEPH,

S/O LATE MARIYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

R/AT NO. 67,

MOTHER TERESSA ROAD,

MARIYANNANAPALYA,

H. A. FARM POST,

BANGALORE – 560 024

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R. P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SUSAN ABRAHAM

W/O ABRAHAM

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

R/AT NO. 565

Digitally signed G. F. 27^TH MAIN,

by CHANDANA

B M BTM II STAGE,

Location: H igh BANGALORE – 560 076

Court of

Karnataka

2. SRI A. MURALI

S/O ARUMUGAM

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

R/AT SITE NO. 51, AND NO.52

FORMED OUT OF SY NO. 39/2.

DASARAHALLI, K. R. PURAM HOBLI,

BANGALORE EAST TALUK

BANGALORE – 560 024

3. SRI MARIYAPPA

S/O LATE JONEASAPPA

R/AT MRIYANNANAPALYA

H. A. FARM POST, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. BINU M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8214/2013 IN IA NO.17, UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(A) OF CPC, AND SECTION 45 AND 73 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH 28) UNDER ANNEXURE-J, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by defendant No.3 in O.S.No.8214/2013 on the file of the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28) (for short “the Trial Court”) is directed against the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, whereby the application, I.A.No.17 filed by the petitioner-defendant No.3 under Order XXVI Rule 10 (A) CPC and Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, to refer the disputed thumb impressions of the petitioner once again to the forensic laboratory (FSL) and to submit a report was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-defendant No.3, who is contesting the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff for declaration, permanent injunction and possession and adduced oral and documentary evidence and thereafter filed the aforesaid application, I.A.No.17. After completion of trial, the plaintiff filed an application seeking reference of the disputed thumb impressions with his admitted thumb impressions, which was referred to the FSL, who submitted a report and the petitioner filed objections to the report of the Court Commissioner and also cross-examined him in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant No.3 filed an application seeking reference of the disputed thumb impressions and admitted thumb impressions once again to the FSL for verification. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff, pursuant to which the Trial Court proceeded to pass the following:

“ORDERS ON IA No.17 Defendant No.3 has filed the above application under Order XXVI Rule 10 (A) of C.P.C. and also Section 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, to refer the thumb impression once again to the forensic verification. which is found on Ex.P1 the Sale Deed with the specimen thumb impression of the defendant No. 3 and also direct the Commissioner to submit a detailed report on the said document.

2. It is contended by the Defendant No.3 that the plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit as against the defendants, and that the defendant herein had denied the coming impression, which was found in the Sale Deed, which was marked on Ex.P1. And that his father has not executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of him in respect of any portion of Survey No.39/2 of Dasarahalli Village and that plaintiff is said to have opted to refer the thumb impression for forensic verification in the year 2018 and after passing the order in the aid petition, the defendant No.3 appeared and has given his specimen signature which was referred to FSL, Madiwala and the sa